Global Warming Denial is Dangerous Creationsim

by Emma Mon Aug 11, 2008 20:58

and spot on!

by podjfvpkjf Mon Aug 11, 2008 22:37

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/#

If your a sceptic and frustrated by the closed minds here and the absence of any serious debate this is a better site. There is far more information, use the forums tab on the home page.

by Mell O Tue Aug 12, 2008 08:53

Thank you for the link to http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/# .......... whoever you are.

Unfortunately the 'Forums' tab on the website you mentioned does not exist.

Good information around Climate Change is SO important these latter days.

Nobody needs inaccurate information or data ......... don't you think?

by Cat Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:45

Seriously

This post has to be the laugh of the century. Talk about clutching at straws.

by Dog Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:51

Why not write a better story then Cat? - can you?

by Sy Tue Aug 12, 2008 14:07

'The Environment Site was created by Adrian Gaskell as part of his MSc dissertation. Its aim is two fold. Firstly it aims to help fund the work of the Surrey Wildlife Trust in protecting areas of outstanding natural beauty in the county of Surrey....The Surrey Wildlife Trust was formed in 1959 and cares for more than 11,000 acres of countryside in Surrey, UK.'

Why would people from Bristol and the SW want to engage in a project designed for Surrey instead of one which pertains to the area they live in? Especially one whose top link (at this time) is 'Psychology degree online.'???

'If your a sceptic and frustrated by the closed minds here and the absence of any serious debate this is a better site'

How odd... after hundreds of denialist posts which have been taken apart and exposed, source by source, you say there has been no debate. Perhaps that's because you lost the debate here, having had your sources exposed as a bunch of jokers, including your deep seated belief in the truth Benny Peiser's research which even Benny Peiser has admitted is wrong.

It would seem that having lost the debate you now wish to move on to somewhere your arguments are less likely to be dismantled by rational logic... Goodbye...

...good article though... a good friend of mine recently described Intelligent Design and Climate Change Skepticism as two of the most obvious abuses of the English language currently in use...

by EXC Tue Aug 12, 2008 15:36

The global warming debate seems to be pretty much the same thing as on here.

by Art Tue Aug 12, 2008 15:56

Oh come on Sy - arguments taken apart?

Ridiculous - the truth is that there has been no warming for 10 years and there will not be any more for the next ten years.

Even the IPCC agrees with that, and admit that their models never predicted this. So why should we not question those with the mind set that GW is now going to accelerate from 2018 when you cannot even predict what HAS happened using past known data!!!

You lost the plot over Gore and his 9 untruths and seem to be smarting a bit because of it. I really do not know how you can say the arguments for scepticism have been taken apart when the truth is available for all to see.

Take the blinkers off mate - the sceptics are gaining more ground every day.

And no amount of wordwooze spin from a "believer" is likely to change that. So what about a good debate on the economic cost of getting it wrong? Or exactly why the models have proved to be so inaccurate?

But no! .......... the believers prefer to make snide association to "creationism" as though that will somehow get you back on track. Well sorry - you have to do better than that. You only impress other believers with that rather juvenile ploy.

Because I also agree with Cat - this supposed link with creationism is a desperate throw of the dice by people debated into a corner and who rankle at the religious label now being applied to them so they try to do the same.

by Sy Tue Aug 12, 2008 17:02

If you think your arguments haven't been taken apart you must stand by Peiser and Monckton as good sources then?

Seeing as Peiser himself has retracted the claims you continue to make in 2006 he is not a very good source (hence you moved on to different sources when this was revealed just as Anarchist606's article described). And Monckton is a non-scientist whose dodgy maths have been comprehensively exposed as junk science. Peer review may not be an iron clad guarantee of truth, but it does ensure that the kind of rudimentary errors Monckton makes wouldn't make it through (hence you moved on to different sources just as Anarchist606's article described).

As for Gore's film, as I have said many times I don't like his politics - green capitalism doesn't add up. However you have been claiming that Gore lost a court case he wasn't involved in, where the judge called the film broadly accurate and representative of the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence on the matter, refused to take it out of schools, refused to bundle an denial film alongside it, and ammended the note accompanying the film so as draw attention to the fact that since the film's publication newer research has been published which supercedes some of the film's statements (eg sea level rise) and that students should have access to the latest research. How that adds up to a denial victory is still beyond me, but as you don't seem to dispute any of these facts (having been corrected that court case didn't involve Gore) beyond that this represents a denial win I'm quite happy to leave you be.

As for losing the plot... I'm not the one who having jettisoned a bunch of disreputable sources has started making allegations that BIM is censoring a position (which as this thread ably demonstrates isn't censored) - again ably demonstrating the behaviour Anarchist606 delineates - and that volunteers are deleting a tiny fraction of the denialist comments and taking careful measures to remove all evidence of their existence from the site log, as no-one other than you and your alias saw the post which it appears was not hidden or deleted from the thread - that is unless someone hacked the BIM site and invisibly removed the post. this is of course possible... but then so is the possibility that the reality I perceive including this site is entirely fictitious... the two scenarios have a similar probability, both of which make the possibility of ACC not occurring (5-10% according to IPCC) look like a near certainty.

I guess you just like highly improbable scenarios.

by Art Tue Aug 12, 2008 17:08

Steve McIntyre, a statistician and a global warming skeptic recently set an email to the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) noting an apparent error in the US annual temperature record. The error was due to incorrect correction for newer measurement instruments deployed in recent years. GISS acknowledged the error and now 1934 is the warmest year on record not 1998.

The error was relatively small, on the order of 0.2 degrees Centigrade. In the grand scheme of global warming that is an enormous error. Realclimate.org, a blog for climate scientists, addressed the error in a post mentioning that while the error means that the temperature records for the US will change, the global mean temperature is not affected.

The correction in the US temperature records may be minor but is creating quite a stir in the climate change debate. While real climate views this as a tempest in a teapot, the skeptics view is that more corrections are likely.

With McIntyre's latest find, an air of intrigue is added to the debate. Climateaudit.org, McIntyre's website has been attacked and access is denied to all. This is not the first attempted sabotage of the site, but thus far the most successful.

What does this mean to global warming followers? That the science may not be settled. The enormous amount a data collected to determine millions of years of climate history is now suspect. Proxy data, data from glacial ice cores, tree rings, sea sediment and other sources, are use to build pre-historical temperature reconstructions. Averaging all these proxies is a huge statistical process. Michael Mann, the climate scientist credited with the famous hockey stick chart used in the press so often to illustrate the rapid rise in global temperatures, is not a statistician.

The discovery of the error in the US historical temperature record does not mean that global warming is not happening or that man's activities have no impact on global climate. It does mean that predicting temperature and sea level rise a hundred years in the future is not a simple task.

by Crash Tue Aug 12, 2008 17:27

"there will not be any more [warming] for the next ten years."

Care to show me where the IPCC stated that?

Yours not expecting a reply

C

by cat Tue Aug 12, 2008 17:44

What story would you like?

One about a group of people so wrapped up in an idea that they despise anyone else that does not think as they do and they go to extreme lengths to stifle the opposing view?

We could bring in the religious side of it and use the Inquisition as an example.

Or possibly Pol Pot and the Killing Fields

Or how science and politicians just a few decades ago said that the debate was over and that Eugenics was proven fact. Interestingly that particular fact allowed the then German government to have all the laws in place before Hitler gained power and that Hitler then used to slaughter millions.

Just a couple of historical examples that thankfully due to our society here in Bristol the excesses of the past will not be repeated.

So instead we have to put up with a tenuous link between a group of religious extremists and the sceptical environmentalists.

Yes .... that is not a bad story for us all in Bristol to ponder and think about.

What exactly is on the agenda of someone who wishes to try to make such a bizarre link?

As a work of fiction that could be quite good!

by Dog Tue Aug 12, 2008 18:38

If its news and with a local link Cat, go for it!

by COzMan Tue Aug 12, 2008 20:27

It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed.

This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

1 - Scientists have accurate historical temperature data
Historical temperature records taken near the surface of the Earth are subject to various biases and recording errors that render them incorrect. In the early days thermometers could only show the temperature at the moment of reading and so the data recorded from that time was for just one reading each day. Later the thermometers were able to record the minimum and maximum temperatures, and so the daily readings were those extremes in the 24 hour period. Only in the last 20 or 30 years have instruments been available that record the temperature at regular intervals throughout the 24 hours, thus allowing a true time-based daily average to be calculated.

The so-called "average" temperatures both published and frequently plotted through time are initially based on only a single daily value, then later on the mathematical average of the minimum and maximum temperatures. Although time-based averages are now available for some regions they are not generally used because the better instrumentation is not uniformly installed throughout the world and the historical data is at best a mathematical average of two values. The problem is that these averages are easily distorted by brief periods of high or low temperatures relative to the rest of the day, such as a brief period with less cloud cover or a short period of cold wind or rain.

Another serious problem is that thermometers are often located where human activity can directly influence the local temperature.[1] This is not only the urban heat island (UHI) effect, where heat generated by traffic, industry and private homes and then trapped by the man-made physical environment causes elevated temperatures. There is also a land use effect, where human activity has modified the microclimate of the local environment through buildings or changes such as land clearing or agriculture. Only recently have the climatic impacts of these human changes started to receive detailed scrutiny, but many older meteorological records are inescapably contaminated by them.

The integrity of some important historical data is also undermined by reports that various Chinese weather stations that were claimed to be in unchanged locations from 1954 to 1983 had in fact moved, with one station moving 5 times and up to 41 kilometres[2]. The extent of this problem on a global scale is unknown but worrying, because shifts of less than 500 metres are known to cause a significant change in recordings.

The observed minimum and maximum temperatures that are recorded, albeit with the inclusion of possible local human influences, are sent to one or more of the three agencies that calculate the "average global temperature" (NASA, NOAA, UK Hadley Centre). These agencies produce corrected data, and graphs that depict a significant increase in average global temperature over the last 30 years. However, this apparent rise may at least partly result from the various distortions of surface temperature measurements described above. No-one has independently verified the temperature records, not least because full disclosure of methods and data is not made and the responsible agencies appear very reluctant to allow such auditing to occur.

In reality, there is no guarantee, and perhaps not even a strong likelihood, that the thermometer-based temperature measurements truly reflect the average local temperatures free from any distortions. There is also no proof that the calculations of average global temperatures are consistent and accurate. For example, it is known that at least two of the three leading climate agencies use very different data handling methods and it follows that at least one of them is likely to be incorrect.

It is stating the obvious to say that if we don't know what the global average temperature has been and currently is, then it is difficult to argue that the world is warming at all, let alone to understand to what degree any alleged change has a human cause.

2 - Temperature trends are meaningful and can be extrapolated
That temperature trends plotted over decades are meaningful, and understood to the degree that they can be projected, is one of the greatest fallacies in the claims about man-made global warming.

Any trend depends heavily upon the choice of start and end points. A judicious selection of such points for can create a wide variety of trends. For example, according to the annual average temperatures from Britain's CRU:

trend for 1900-2006 = 0.72 °C/century

trend for 1945-2006 = 1.05 °C/century

trend for 1975-2006 = 1.87 °C/century,

None of these trends is any more correct than either of the others.

Despite the common use of temperature trends in scientific and public discussion, they cannot be used to illustrate possible human greenhouse influences on temperature unless episodic natural events, such as the powerful El Nino of 1998, are taken into account and corrected for.

Trends cannot be extrapolated meaningfully unless scientists:

(a) Thoroughly understand all relevant climate factors;

(b) Are confident that the trends in each individual factor will continue; and

(c) Are confident that interactions between factors will not cause a disruption to the overall trend.

The IPCC's Third Assessment Report of 2001 listed 11 possible climate factors and indicated that the level of scientific understanding was "very low" for 7 of them and "low" for another. No similar listing appears in the recent Fourth Assessment Report, but it does contain a list of factors relevant to the absorption and emission of radiation that shows that the level of scientific knowledge of several of those factors is still quite low.

Scientists are still struggling even to understand the influence of clouds on temperature. Observational data shows that low-level cloud outside the tropics has decreased since 1998, but scientists cannot be certain that the decreasing trend will continue, nor what such a decrease would mean. Perhaps clouds act as a natural thermostat and higher temperatures will ultimately create more clouds and this will have a cooling effect.[3]

Again, if random natural events dictate the historical trend, then extrapolation of the trend makes no sense. Even if those natural events can be expected to continue in the future, their severity – which often dictates the short-term trend – is unknowable.

3 - The accuracy of climate models can be determined from their output
A common practice among climate scientists is to compare the output of their climate models to historical data from meteorological observations. (In fact the models are usually "adjusted" to match that historical data as closely as possible, but let's ignore that for now.)

The accuracy of a model is determined by the accuracy with which it simulates each climatic factor and climatic process rather than the closeness of the match between its output and the historical data. If the internal processing is correct then so too will be the output, but apparently accurate output does not confer accuracy on the internal processes.

Two issues to watch are:

(a) The combination of a number of inaccuracies can produce acceptable output if calculations that are "too high" counterbalance those that are "too low"

(b) If the internal processes are largely based on data that changes almost immediately as a consequence of a change in temperature, then the output of the model will probably appear accurate when compared to historical data, but it will be of no benefit for predicting future changes.

4 - The consensus among scientists is decisive (or even important)
The extent of a claimed consensus that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring is unknown and the claim of consensus is unsupported by any objective data[4]. However, this is irrelevant because by its nature any consensus is a product of opinions, not facts.[5]

Though consensus determines legal and political decisions in most countries, this simply reflects the number of persons who interpret data in a certain way or who have been influenced by the opinions of others. Consensus does not confer accuracy or “rightness”.

Scientific matters are certainly not settled by consensus. Einstein pointed out that hundreds of people agreeing with him were of no relevance, because it would take just one person to prove him wrong.

Science as a whole, and its near neighbour medicine, are replete with examples of individuals or small groups of researchers successfully undermining the prevailing popular theories of the day. This is not to say that individuals or small groups who hold maverick views are always correct, but it is to say that even the most widely-held opinions should never be regarded as an ultimate truth.

Science is about observation, experiment and the testing of hypotheses, not consensus.

5 - The dominance of scientific papers on a certain subject establishes a truth

This fallacy is closely related to the previous discussion of consensus, but here the impact is an indirect consequence of a dominant opinion.

Funding for scientific research has moved towards being determined by consensus, because where public monies are concerned the issue ultimately comes back to an opinion as to whether the research is likely to be fruitful. Prior to the last 20 or 30 years, research was driven principally by scientific curiosity. That science research funding has now become results-oriented has had a dramatic, negative impact on the usefulness of many scientific results. For, ironically, pursuing science that is thought by politician to be “important” or “in the public interest” often results in science accomplishments that are conformist and fashionable rather than independent and truly useful.

Targeting of “useful” research strongly constricts the range of scientific papers that are produced. A general perception may arise that few scientists disagree with the dominant opinion, whereas the reality may be that papers that reject the popular opinion are difficult to find simply because of the weight of funding, and hence the research effort, that is tailored towards the conventional wisdom.

Science generally progresses by advancing on the work that has gone before, and the usual practice is to cite several existing papers to establish the basis for one's work. Again the dominance of papers that adhere to a conventional wisdom can put major obstacles in the way of the emergence of any counter-paradigm.

6 - Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation.

In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly their reputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny.

Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association.

Some journals now request that authors suggest appropriate reviewers but this is a sure way to identify reviewers who will be favourable to certain propositions.

It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal "Science" announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing a paper that suggests otherwise?

The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.

In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.

7 - The IPCC is a reliable authority and its reports are both correct and widely endorsed by all scientists

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals (see item 6). There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming.

Four more issues noted above are also very relevant to the IPCC procedures. The IPCC reports are based on historical temperature data and trends (see 1 & 2), and the attribution of warming to human activities relies very heavily on climate modelling (see item 3). The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis (see item 5).

These fallacies alone are major defects of the IPCC reports, but the problems do not end there. Other distortions and fallacies of the IPCC are of its own doing.

Governments appoint experts to work with the IPCC but once appointed those experts can directly invite other experts to join them. This practice obviously can, and does, lead to a situation where the IPCC is heavily biased towards the philosophies and ideologies of certain governments or science groups.

The lead authors of the chapters of the IPCC reports can themselves be researchers whose work is cited in those chapters. This was the case with the so-called "hockey stick" temperature graph in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001. The paper in which the graph first appeared was not subject to proper and independent peer review, despite which the graph was prominently featured in a chapter for which the co-creator of the graph was a lead author. The graph was debunked in 2006[6] and has been omitted without explanation from the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) of 2007.

The IPCC has often said words to the effect "We don't know what else can be causing warming so it must be humans" (or "the climate models will only produce the correct result if we include man-made influences"), but at the same time the IPCC says that scientists have a low level of understanding of many climate factors. It logically follows that if any natural climate factors are poorly understood then they cannot be properly modelled, the output of the models will probably be incorrect and that natural forces cannot easily be dismissed as possible causes. In these circumstances it is simply dishonest to unequivocally blame late 20th century warming on human activity.[7]

The IPCC implies that its reports are thoroughly reviewed by thousands of experts. Any impression that thousands of scientists review every word of the reports can be shown to be untrue by an examination of the review comments for the report by IPCC Working Group I. (This report is crucial, because it discusses historical observations, attributes a likely cause of change and attempts to predict global and regional changes. The reports by working groups 2 and 3 draw heavily on the findings of this WG I report.)

The analysis of the WG I report for the 4AR revealed that:

(a) A total of just 308 reviewers (including reviewers acting on behalf of governments) examined the 11 chapters of the WGI I report

(b) An average of 67 reviewers examined each chapter of this report with no chapter being examined by more than 100 reviewers and one by as few as 34.

(c) 69% of reviewers commented on less than 3 chapters of the 11-chapter report. (46% of reviewers commented on just one chapter and 23% on two chapters, thus accounting for more than two-thirds of all reviewers.)

(d) Just 5 reviewers examined all 11 chapters and two of these were recorded as "Govt of (country)", which may represent a team of reviewers rather than individuals

(e) Every chapter had review comments from a subset of the designated authors for the chapter, which suggests that the authoring process may not have been diligent and inclusive

Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity but:

(a) Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter

(b) A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content of this chapter

- 7 reviewers were "contributing editors" of the same chapter

- 3 were overall editors of the Working Group I report
- 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
- 8 reviewers were noted as "Govt of ..." indicating one or more reviewers who were appointed by those governments (and sometimes the same comments appear under individual names as well as for the government in question)

- Only 25 individual reviewers appeared to have no vested interest in this chapter

(c) The number of comments from each reviewer varied greatly

- 27 reviewers made just 1 or 2 comments but those making more than 2 comments often drew attention to typographical errors, grammatical errors, mistakes in citing certain papers or inconsistencies with other chapters, so how thorough were these reviews with very few comments?

- only 18 reviewers made more than 10 comments on the entire 122-page second order draft report (98 pages of text, 24 of figures) and 9 of those 18 had a vested interest

(d) Just four reviewers, including one government appointed team or individual, explicitly endorsed the entire chapter in its draft form - not thousands of scientists, but FOUR!

The claim that the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report carries the imprimatur of having been reviewed by thousands, or even hundreds, of expert and independent scientists is incorrect, and even risible. In actuality, the report represents the view of small and self-selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.

More independent scientists of standing (61) signed a public letter to the Prime Minister of Canada cautioning against the assumption of human causation of warming[8] than are listed as authors of the 4AR Summary for Policymakers (52). More than 50 scientists also reviewed the Independent Summary for Policymakers, the counter-view to the IPCC's summary that was published by the Fraser Institute of Canada[9].

8 - It has been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused global warming

The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. As the discussion of fallacy 1 showed, there is no certainty that this is the case.

But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter. Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today?[10]

The IPCC claims a subjective 90% to 95% probability that emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming but that assumes (a) that warming has occurred, (b) that such a subjective probability can be assigned and is meaningful, and (c) that because existing climate models cannot produce correct results without including some "human" influence, then the only allowable explanation is that humans have caused warming.

Remarkably these claims are accompanied by an admission that the level of scientific understanding of many climate factors is quite low. This means that the IPCC's claim for dangerous human-caused warming rests primarily on the output of climate models that are unvalidated and recognised to be incomplete.[11]

The other foundation for the claim of dangerous warming is based upon laboratory work and theoretical physics regarding the ability of molecules of carbon dioxide to absorb heat and re-transmit it. Using these principles, and ignoring other factors, it can be shown that an increase in carbon dioxide beyond pre-industrial levels will cause a very small increase in temperature and that the warming will become less as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases. However, these principles were developed in laboratory environments that don't match the complexity of real world climate, and the "other factors" that are ignored are actually an integral part of the climate system. With few exceptions, the actions and interactions of these factors are poorly understood. Moreover, empirical tests of the amount of warming that will be caused by a doubling of human emissions suggest a non-alarming figure of only about 1 deg. C[12].

One major stumbling block for the hypothesis that carbon dioxide has caused significant warming is that since continuous and direct measurements of carbon dioxide began in 1958 global temperatures have both risen and fallen while at all times the concentration of carbon dioxide continued to rise.

It would seem that if carbon dioxide is causing any warming at all then it is easily overwhelmed by other, probably quite natural, climate forces.

Scientists are continuing to investigate the possible impacts of solar forces on climate and in some cases have shown strong correlations. Other scientists are questioning whether cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds that then control the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Changes in ozone have also been proposed as drivers of climate. That all three of these issues are actively being explored gives the lie to claims that climate science is settled and that carbon dioxide is known to be the sole major cause of recent climatic warming.

Very recently several scientists have said words to the effect "Yes, the natural forces do drive the climate but we believe that carbon dioxide adds to the warming", though they notably refrain from defining how much warming the carbon dioxide may have caused.[13] The reality is that there is no clear evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any measurable effect on temperatures. Such a claim rests on climate models of unproven accuracy and on lines of physical argument that expressly exclude consideration of other known important drivers of climate change.

Conclusions
The hypothesis of dangerous human-caused warming caused by CO2 emission is embroiled in uncertainties of the fundamental science and its interpretation, and by fallacious public discussion. It is utterly bizarre that, in face of this reality, public funding of many billions of dollars is still being provided for climate change research. It is even more bizarre that most governments, urged on by environmental NGSs and other self-interested parties, have either already introduced carbon taxation or trading systems (Europe; some groups of US States), or have indicated a firm intention to do so (Australia).

At its most basic, if scientists cannot be sure that temperatures are today rising, nor establish that the gentle late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 emissions, then it is nonsense to propose that expensive controls are needed on human carbon dioxide emissions.

by Lol Tue Aug 12, 2008 20:35

The article above said you would cry censorship and Pol Pot - and you did!

by Art - always up for the unexpected Tue Aug 12, 2008 20:35

Now I am sure you have seen this before but ...................

"Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

There is more and more data on the way - sit back and enjoy a rocky ride!

by migration Tue Aug 12, 2008 20:49

One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L’Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/d...51670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html

Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.

Allegre’s conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry...shtml

In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as “global warming deniers.”

This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.

by Art Tue Aug 12, 2008 21:01

"Acknowledging that temperatures in the past decade have neither reached nor surpassed their 60-year high of 1998, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. IPCC Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this 21st century".

Source: Reuters, 11 Jan. 2008

Always expect the unexpected Crash

by Anarchist606 Tue Aug 12, 2008 21:07

Thanks for the kind comments about the article. In hindsight, I should have compared the climate denial arguments to zombies - no matter how many times you kill them - they keep coming back.

Take CO2man's post - a huge swathe of discredited information. For example it repeats the '60 scientists letter to Canadian Prime Minister' myth - "independent scientists of standing (61) signed a public letter to the Prime Minister of Canada" - only half of them are proper scientists, a tiny amount are climatologists and there are plenty of signatories who are energy-industry funded consultants and at least one (of the proper scientists) has since pulled out.

By contrast 90 proper climate scientists wrote a reply urging action.

see
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/stor...84c9a
http://www.desmogblog.com/90-canadian-climate-scientist...rship

Honestly it is like land of the living dead argument here! How many times has than one been de-bunked and how often does it lurch back...staggering...so much...dead arguments...must eat brains.....

Must eat brains...must rise of grave of discredited arguments to live again...urrr...

by Art Wed Aug 13, 2008 05:34

No serious debate - not even an attempt to deal with the issues

Just another snide remark

Apparently we are "Zombies" now and in case anyone was not sure what a Zombie looked like we are kindly given a picture from a film. Not shot in Bristol by the likes of it but a fare number of people look a bit like that in the early hours of Saturday morning after a few pints of Brains SA (Skull Attack).

Was that shown film shown as the B feature with "An Inconvenient Truth"? - They often package similar films together as they know what attracts certain audiences.

LOL!!!

But for goodness sake could we get away from the position where a sceptic makes a point then a believer tries to trash the reference (which in this case is a bit silly seeing as the IPCC reports have their summaries written by politicians who most certainly are not scientists!!!!) and then goes on to call the sceptic(s) by yet another another derogatory term.

From the believers position I believe such actions simply make more people suspicious of the doom and gloom claims. Think about it. Suppose you are right. (And I am very sceptical about that!) How many people do you think you will convince by the power of your argument if your argument is versed in the terminology of a child’s name throwing?

I am trying to answer the sensible questions as they come up - Crash asked for the reference re what the IPCC said about the fact that it has not warmed for ten years and the indications are that there will be no warming for another ten.

Two references are given. The Reuters one took a bit of tracking down but I knew it was there. So I hope Crash is pleased as he was apparently “not expecting a reply”. But as has been said before the Aquabuoy data re sea temperatures and the Aqua satellite data on Water Vapour and CO2 interaction has as far as I am away never been mentioned by anyone other than us sceptics. And when we do, because the data is so powerful and the believers can not deal with any evidence againat them, that is when the name calling starts.

The believers are nothing if not predictable.

by Tory Monarchist Wed Aug 13, 2008 07:46

... I rarely agree with any article I come across on this website; in this case however, Anarchist606 has hit the nail on the head. The complete lack of scientific literacy among the climate change deniers is astonishing!

by toe stepper Wed Aug 13, 2008 09:03

Debate is pointless?

Well I suppose it is if your mind is made up and your debating skills are the stuff of snide remarks and name calling. Little wonder we have name calling rather than adult debate when whilst a sceptic is defined as:- One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons, all we get is name calling from the trolls on here.

So what have we had so far from the believers?

Sceptics are “denialists” akin to “Holocaust Deniers”

Sceptics are paid to deny

Sceptics are Capitalists

Sceptics are akin to Creationalists

Sceptics are Zombies

Personally I cannot wait to see what is next on the list!!!!

And all because we sceptics challenge the dogma of the believers and seek what is true, the facts, the reasons. And you know what? Our position gets stronger every day. Helped a great deal by silly posts like the “creationalist” and “zombie” posts above.

But we now have a change of tack - instead of answering the reasonable questions on the latest data we have the "cop out" move - a variation on the "Sharn't answer that on principle" displacement activity where a nobody questions the scientific standing of the sceptics.

Oh deary deary me! That old chestnut just does not work anymore. If anything the new data is causing more to become sceptics than ever before and that is because the science is good not blinded by "faith".

by Anarchist606 Wed Aug 13, 2008 09:16

I said the arguments used were like zombies, not you - if I had called you zombies, I guess I would have broken the respect guidelines and had the comment hidden (which would have been a fair cop guv) but I didn't.

I am attacking your position and not you (it's nothing personal, I am sure you are all nice people!).

by Emma Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:33

Going with the "dead argument" theme here (but please, lets not have name calling any any side)

The 'it has been warming for ten years so global warming is not true' argument has been pruned off time and time again, to summarise a complex situation, it is about the oscillations in the climate being played out. Here is a good technical description on the issue;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop....html

This issue is also related to data around temperatures in the ocean, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Osci....html

And finally it was said before about the Arctic ice - what is happening? In summary the ice is melting, it is global warming and we are to blame. See; http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-nat....html

Plus a couple more (of the many) summaries of the denailist position and why it is (sorry!) incorrect;
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechang...y.asp
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-...king/

by nickleberry Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:50

Let me rebut three contributions from @Art. Firstly this:

Ridiculous - the truth is that there has been no warming for 10 years and there will not be any more for the next ten years. Even the IPCC agrees with that, and admit that their models never predicted this.

The possibility that the next 10 years will not involve warming has already been discussed on another thread. I explained then why this is no argument against man-made climate-change. I'll do it again here. The source for your statement is a recent article in Nature. My advice to you, @Art, is that you read the article, rather than rely on secondary sources.

The report alerts people to the fact that the Earth is entering one of its regular cooling phases; this phase is likely to mask the effects of man-made climate change in the short term. Politically this may be a disaster because people (like you, @Art!) will use this phenomenon to argue that climate change is not happening. This argument is exactly what the scientists are warning us against.

Let me quote from the BBC's coverage:

The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.

"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.

"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."

More information on this can be found here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/115552/7430

Now to the second bit of bunkum from @Art, who posts this "quote":

"Acknowledging that temperatures in the past decade have neither reached nor surpassed their 60-year high of 1998, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. IPCC Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this 21st century"

I've googled this little fellow and found it on two web pages - this one, and another one.... where the quote was used by someone trying to deny climate change. It's possible that the quote is genuine, I suppose, but you will need to provide some evidence for that. A primary source perhaps.

And, finally, the interview you quoted about the Aquabuoy data. Dude, you are quoting an interview from The Australian newspaper. This is not a primary source; indeed it's not a source with any scientific credentials whatsoever. I am a research scientist by profession and I can tell you that if I need to resort to quoting mainstream newspapers as sources then my research will be rejected by every reputable scientific journal under the sun. If your arguments are to be taken seriously, it is not enough to demonstrate that someone somewhere agrees with you (I have no doubt that there are many people who think similarly to you); rather, you need to locate primary sources that hold even a modicum of scientific weight. Unless you do this, your arguments will be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

by Terry Wed Aug 13, 2008 13:01 terry_brown at tiscali dot co dot uk

Could someone please give me proof that evolution is real. By evolution do we mean one animal turning into another? If so there must be millions upon millions of examples. Yet I cannot find even ONE! I have searched and searched, yet still cannot find the answer. Surely if we teach our children that evolution is a fact, then we need to be able to point to an animal and say what it evolved from. Not just some diagram showing a step by step progress of a horse that used to be on the classroom wall when I was at school. What I want is PROOF. Has anyone got that proof?
Terry

by Art Wed Aug 13, 2008 13:29

Economic consequences of the believers forcing us all up the wrong road

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/08/policy-consequences-of...stem/

A Scientific American Article pointing out that soot has more of an affect on snow melt than CO2

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-drive...-snow

The famous Copenhagen Consensus that came about after the ridiculous defaming of Lomborg

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=953

Interesting stuff

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Robinson-2008.htm

More interesting stuff

http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/RM.AM.pdf

A link to peer reviewed articles sceptical about the GW “consensus”

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

and a large report including heavyweight sceptic Prof Paul Reiter

http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_20.pdf

Polish research that debunks the Hockey Stick graph.

http://lustiag.pp.fi/gt_trace2008_cyclic.pdf

Wall Street Journal Article by Prof Reiter

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778860618203531.html...aries

and then an article on how wrong can you be?

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Eq...3.htm

with the full article from which the article was taken :-

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

Plus an anlysis on why only a few mm of sea level change is likely not 20 ft as Al Gore would have us believe.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_j...d.pdf

I will let you get on with trying to trash that little lot Nickleberry and when you have finished I will get you some more (Yawn ;0)

In the meantime the reference to the AquaSatelite Data was not from the Australian newspaper but from the ABC network and as for original articles on the data – you need to be patient – they are on their way – the reference was only regarding the early days initial findings – dramatic stuff for the believers (in a state of shock by all accounts as their models are proved wrong) but it will be a waiting game and as more and more data indicates the inaccuracy of the IPCC models – just have a guess at what most people will think of those that cried WOLF to many times.

by Joe Bloggs Wed Aug 13, 2008 13:52

A few comments on a recent post:

Nickleberry relies on this quote

"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."

Which is very interesting but it begs two questions. Firstly assuming we understand these cooling phases in the first place, which I think questionable, what evidence is there that they were included in the models the IPCC rely upon. The question then is how valid are the models in the absence of those inputs. What actually seems to have happened is that it has come up recently, there is no evidence of this anywhere before 2007.

Secondly It seems to me that had they been included we could have expected some time ago a statement from the IPCC or science in general to expect a ten year lull at around this time. So why given the apparent urgency of the problem was evidence of a temporary lull withheld from the general public. This may be a case of poor communication but a less charitable explanation would be that this supports the view that as a self serving bureaucracy they have no interest in data that contradicts a doomsday scenario.

Then this little gem from Nickleberry

“you need to locate primary sources that hold even a modicum of scientific weight. Unless you do this, your arguments will be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.”

The standard of proof is now in the debate. This entire site is littered with secondary sources but if you are a sceptic you must provide primary sources. That is a double standard, what do you want, the original research paper or perhaps an interview with the source. If you really want primary sources Nickleberry I hope that will be applied evenly. The source used by Art is no more or less valid than anyone else’s here. We are all to some degree using secondary sources to support our arguments.

Moving on from that to the aquabuoy data itself, this may help you.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.ht...39580

Before you dismiss this as a right wing rag from Canada remember your own standard of proof. Get the Primary source to rebut it., don’t give your opinion of the secondary sources bias. Alternatively accept that on a public board like this it is valid as a source

Then there is also the aqua satellite data, this has been picked up on by the “Australian” conveniently allowing it’s dismissal as right wing agit prop. It has a legitimate source. The data may, yes that’s right may, not does support an old theory by professor Richard Lindzen best summarised here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis

As you will see it is considred important enough to be one of the reasons the aqua satellite went up in the first place.

The significance of this is that if true, it will limit the effects of CO2 based warming which may make the problem less severe than is feared. The evidence supporting it is in the same page of the Wikepedia entry, it is entitled “

“Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations”

Part of the authors conclusion is:

“The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization. These observations should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming prediction.”

In other words, it may support it, there is uncertainty, we need more research

So there you have it, two primary sources, if you really want to pursue it there are a number of papers criticising the original papers which partially disproved Lindzens science in the first place as well.

So what I am saying is that being a sceptic at this stage of the debate is a perfectly legitimate position. It is not denial, there is ample evidence if you chose to look that supports the view that we do not have all the answers, that’s all scepticism is, a belief that the science is not complete, the models inadequate and the conclusions premature.

Here’s some very good advice I found on the internet on the subject of keeping an open mind.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." The Buddha”

I’m sure Nickleberry will recognise it, it’s from his blog.

by nickleberry Wed Aug 13, 2008 14:02

@Art, I'm busy so I'm not going to go through all the links you provide. But here's an analysis of the first couple that you provide:

[1] http://climatesci.org/2008/07/08/policy-consequences-of...stem/
[2] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-drive...-snow

Neither of these links dispute that humans are causing climate change. They dispute the method by which it is happening, suggesting that factors other than CO2 emissions are important also. A quote from the first source:

While natural variations are important, the human influence is significant and involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to the human input of CO2.

And a quote from the second source:

Soot is three times more effective than carbon dioxide--the most common greenhouse gas--at melting polar snow, triggering feedback loops that further accelerate polar warming.

So, both sources suggest that climate change is happening. Is that what you want us to conclude, @Art? In which case, why are we arguing? I agree! If you have another conclusion in mind then you'd better tell me what it is. Please try to be clear.

by Sy Wed Aug 13, 2008 14:06

'the Aquabuoy data re sea temperatures and the Aqua satellite data on Water Vapour and CO2 interaction has as far as I am away never been mentioned by anyone other than us sceptics'

Try reading realclimate... All of the points you mention are thoroughly discussed and explained there by well respected and heavily published climate scientists. Your lack of knowledge of who has written what outside of the internet denial echo chamber is somewhat telling though.

'Dude, you are quoting an interview from The Australian newspaper. This is not a primary source; indeed it's not a source with any scientific credentials whatsoever.'

Actually I wouldn't mind so much if the Interview was with a credible scientist who had published peer reviewed work on the topic. In this case though, its not, its with an Ozzie lass called Jennifer Marohasy who has already been exposed on this site as someone whose primary income is from her position as a senior fellow at the Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, known for its free-market advocacy, and climate change denial. Among the Institute for Public Affairs clients are Murray Irrigation Limited, Visyboard, Telstra, Western Mining, BHP Billiton and the tobacco industry.

If you want people to stop accusing you of having been conned by big business it would help your case if you stopped referring to them as credible sources on ACC, while trying to claim that scientists who research the areas in question should not be listened to.

I guess that's Nickleberry's point though - finding a primary source where a scientist (or group of scientists) makes a claim is far more reliable than quoting a paid industry stooge interviewed by Murdoch's media machine when seeking scientific information. Peer review is system designed to week out this kind of nonsense. Hence your hated of it.

How many times do the same con artists have to be exposed in the same place... We've had Peiser mk2, Monckton mk2, the 60 concerned scientists mk2, confusing the USA with the world mk2 and now Marohasy mk2 all within the last week. Anarchist606's zombie homology seems rather apt. Once a source has been discredited, leaving it for a few months or a couple of years doesn't somehow make it credible again.

by joe blog Wed Aug 13, 2008 14:08

Heres another link on Iris from 2004

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris3.html

perhaps the original author Anarchist 606 would like to comment and say if he still stands by his original article

Yeahh hmmm braaaainns moooore

sorry that just fell out.

by Joe bloggs Wed Aug 13, 2008 14:23

Sorry, in the interests of accuracy that links from 2002

It's difficult you know with your eye balls hanging out

by Joe bloggs Wed Aug 13, 2008 14:28

There is ample proof that evolution is real Terry. Try reading "the origin of the species" by Charles Darwin as starting point then come back here for a further reading list to help you.

by Jake Wed Aug 13, 2008 14:36

How many professional denialists/skeptics/can fit you on a pinhead?

by Art Wed Aug 13, 2008 15:48

My favourite quote re the shrill noise of the alarmists and the cost of us getting it wrong as a result of their undue influence is this from Reiter and Bate

"Serious scientists rarely engage in public quarrels. Alarmists are therefore often unopposed in offering simplicity in place of complexity, ideology in place of scientific dialogue, and emotion in place of dry perspective. The alarmists will likely steal the show on Capitol Hill today. But anyone truly worried about malaria in impoverished countries would do well to focus on improving human living conditions, not the weather."

Mr. Reiter is director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Institut Pasteur, Paris. Mr. Bate is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

As for discredited personalities - you would have to go some way to exceed the excesses of Gore. And then we have the likes of Hansen discredited for tweaking the US temp data and Reiter’s exposure of the spin within the IPCC process that even when he resigned in protest the IPCC still wanted his name in the consensus!

But we can all play tit for tat. This should be a place for discussion but instead it is a headlight shining on the wide eyes of the believers who thunderstruck are lashing out in all directions.

I am not surprised Nickleberry chose not to look at too many of the links. It would be uncomfortable I would imagine.

by Ban Ki Moon Wed Aug 13, 2008 15:59

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
;
;
;
;
I think the believers are going to have a difficult time in the future as more leave the sinking ship of faith.

by Art Wed Aug 13, 2008 16:11

Now here is food for thought

SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Dr Gray wrote:

"Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the IPCC and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are fundamentally unsound. Some of you may have received more detail if you received my recent NZClimate Truth Newsletters (see under “Links” on this website).

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.

Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction.

My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens."

Anyone taking any bets on how long the IPCC will stagger on?

by Emma Wed Aug 13, 2008 16:14

“Our results are based upon actual observations that are used to drive global climate models,” Lin concludes. “And when we use actual observations from CERES we find that the Iris Hypothesis won’t work.”

by ty Wed Aug 13, 2008 16:28

Wow - I am impressed, a letter signed by the 100 denialists they could scrape together. Includes the usual suspects of Exxon paid deniers lots of non-climate scientists and only a handful of people who know the area.

Contrast to the thousands who form the opposing view.

I know what boat I am on.

by ty Wed Aug 13, 2008 16:44

Food for though indeed.

A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal with the last article being published 17 years ago.

He is a founder member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, a group of well-known deniers with a mandate to disagree with the IPCC.

So no surprise in what he says then.

C'mon denialists - you can do better than that!

by Joe Bloggs Wed Aug 13, 2008 16:52

Your right. Lin was one of the scientists who partially disproved the Iris Hypothesis in the first place in 2002 or thereabouts. It may turn out to be rubbish

If I understand this correctly one of the reasons the aqua satellites went up was to test the Iris Hypothesis because it's very hard to get data on clouds from ground based equipment which I believe both Lin and Lindzen used. It's very important because if true it means there may be a mechanism that prevents warming from taking place beyond certain levels. So if you put more CO2 up there the mechanism compensates and the predicted degree of warming doesn't take place. This would have major consequences for all concerned. It's not in the IPCC models so they would be completely unhinged for a start.

Lindzen's a pretty big hitter in the field which probably explains why NASA was willing to chuck a few billion at a satellite

Here's his bio from wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

and a less charming one here

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

He's been criticised for his industry ties and some people, particularly here may dismiss him because of that, but you can't deny his academic pedigree or his forthright views.

I think if someone of his academic stature has doubts we should at least look at the whole thing with a more critical eye. It's politics to disregard him because of who pays his bills not science.

by www.infowars.com - www.infowars.com Wed Aug 13, 2008 17:52

Battling with science and being responsible for the death of millions.

I only skimmed the article and these two points jumped out as being hideously hypocritical.

Climate change is natural and created by the sun NOT CO2! Here's the science from IPCC

Climate change hysteria is leading to the death of millions. 1st the Africans and then us (Sourced from the founder of Greenpeace)

www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php

The makers of this Channel 4 documentary were taken to court and found not guilty of misleading people. The Australian scientist who came up with the computer model that predicts man-made CO2 global warming which was used for Kyoto has publicly apologized for misleading people saying that the money and prestige he was given led him to mislead the world.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/carbon_tax_100_sci...x.htm

by peer review Wed Aug 13, 2008 18:00

The founder of greenpeace?
Who was that then?

by Capitool Wed Aug 13, 2008 19:02

I seem to remember hearing the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury say a few months ago that Global Warming will kill BILLIONS in the future.

by Art Thu Aug 14, 2008 06:36

Really!

And of course the Arch Bishop of Canterbury's scientific prowess is legendary!!

Amazing !

We sceptics have to provide all sorts of wonderful unimpeachable sources and yet the believers can simply quote another religious figure.

You know this would be truly funny if it were written as a script for a TV show like Lab Rats or the Office.

And you guys say WE have to do better than that!

Truly laughable.

by Chilling Comment Thu Aug 14, 2008 06:43

"As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned earlier this year , "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."

If ANYONE had any doubts what the politicians have in mind for yet more control just read the link.

The believers are sucked into the bigest politicalised scam of all time - but they are so blind to anything other than their "faith" that they just do not see it.

by Capitool Thu Aug 14, 2008 08:27

You assume too much about everybody and everything as per usual with your capacity to ignore the obvious and to see only that which suits your blinkered perspective.
My comment about the Archbishop was purely to illiustrate how people not naturally qualified in scientific or academic terms, can see fit to pontificate at and too others after assimilating a little data as if they are experts, a little like yourself I believe, along with your only too apparent capitalistic bent.

by wassinaname Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:24

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."
James Annan, a scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.
Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree.
Annan offered to pay if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only take 50 to 1 odds on global temperatures in 20 years being lower than they are now.

by Mell O Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:28

*
Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; and his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990's and had not received any money from these since.

According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review of Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website www.Exxonsecrets.org and a review of Exxon financial documents.

He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.

by Art Thu Aug 14, 2008 14:16

The IPCC has charged $56Billion to taxpayers across the world and only produced some fear driven models of what may happen but which current actual events and the Aqua buoys and Satellite latest data indicate that these IPCC models are very wrong indeed. The IPCC is the very worst form of governmental civil service gravy train.

The cost in lives and wellbeing to all on the planet of running off down the wrong road like Chicken Little yelling “The sky is falling” is to large for anyone to take the models from the IPCC seriously seeing as given the past data they cannot even predict events that HAVE happened. And they certainly did not predict the 10 years of no warming or the now predicted further ten years of non-warming.

But if you have "faith" then I am sure everything will be alright. Sort of. But you may have to backtrack a bit.

Your need for apocalypse will fade over time.

On a serious note I do wish the silly “he used to work for Exxon in the 1990’s” clapcrap would be tempered by the opposite view from us sceptics that coning the politicians and the public out of $billions by way of dodgy dossiers, dodgy science and make it up as you go along computer predictions is to me at any rate far more morally dubious than a guy who paid his bills by working for a living!

by Capitalist fool Thu Aug 14, 2008 14:59

"Paid his bills by working for a living!"
Sounds like an excuse for doing just about anything, regardless of the consequences.

by Joe Bloggs Thu Aug 14, 2008 15:31

Here's someone else’s comment I found on realclimate.org in a thread about Lindzens work, it makes quite interesting reading on the subject of bias and holding minority views. The author was someone called Hank, whoever he is, probably an American Zombie, or should I say as per Anarchist 606's last post a nice warm caring guy who thinks like a zombie, funny he seems quite bright. That's quite a good name for a zombie, if I had one I like to think I could call it Hank and get to know it over time,

Anyway I'm rambling folks, here's Hank the not a zombie for you;

"In Lindzen’s defence, I must say that it is often tempting (i.e. human) to overstate the importance of an observation or a point if you are representing a minority view, as his is. The risk is that you get attacked on those points and your other (possibly valid?) points get snowed under. He is not just appearing at conferences/institutes that support the sceptical view (like the Marshall Institute). Lindzen did present a paper at the international conference “Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto” which was held on 21/22 October 2005 and hosted by the “Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation”. This was not a conference just for the “believers” or just the “sceptics”. Check their website. I have a natural aversion for accepting a (claimed?) majority opinion and more keen in reading the minority position and I am also allergic to claims that a scientist has an agenda or is sponsored by interest groups, as a way of discrediting him/her. (This applies to “believers” and sceptics” alike)

Many brilliant scientists have resisted a common scientific opinion and dared to come up with a dissenting view. Case in point, the two Australian Nobel prize winners who - against the opinion all other scientists in their field - claimed that ulcers were not caused by stress but by a bacteria. Let that be a lesson to those students that read or contribute to this forum. Let us not forget the prediction of scientists in the 70’s that we were at the point of entering another Ice Age."

by Yawn Thu Aug 14, 2008 16:28

Hank who?

Who on earth will it be next,?

I know, try one with little red riding hood or frankenstein even, or how about the three little capitalist pigs that want to take everybody to the 'free' market?

by Emma Thu Aug 14, 2008 17:06

"We sceptics have to provide all sorts of wonderful unimpeachable sources..."

Your sources are often shown to be very impeachable - for example being paid to present one side of the argument by an oil company or not being a climate scientist (or any kind of scientist at all).

You attack the IPCC reports for not being subject to enough peer-review and yet accept articles and reports that have no peer review at all without question.

When you cite a source that is not a scientist and they are pulled down because they don't know the area; you respond to say that they are attacking the person not the argument.

Yet, when when it suits you, you then do what you argue against and attack the person not the argument, rubbishing the source.

I am sorry to say I am coming round to the original authors point of view that this is a bit of pointless debate because the quality/threshold/qualifications of proof you hold for your perspective (i.e. anyone can attack the IPCC/Gore and it is valid, bias irrelevant) it totally at odds with the quality/threshold/qualifications that you allow to attack the denial point of view (i.e. no qualification is good enough, no attack is valid because they are bias)

You cite a single scientists with 'unimpeachable' credentials and that is something we have to listen to, and yet the other side can cite the work of 1000s of
scientists with 'unimpeachable' credentials, and it is dismissed out of hand.

by Mell O Thu Aug 14, 2008 17:43

Nice summary Emma, thanks very much for taking the time to spell it out so succinctly.

Your comment is the clearest analysis of the so called 'debate' (?) around the CC + GW 'issues' I've read so far anywhere to date, thanks for that.

But you are right essentially, it is utterly pointless to 'debate' with them, as all they have to offer are the same old discredited 'names' and endless rants, and witless sarcasm.

There function is purely to distract and waste peoples time, when we respond to them, we do what they want, its like banging our heads against a brick wall,

There are better ways to take down the wall.

x

by captain Denial. Thu Aug 14, 2008 18:16

The whole denialist phenomenon reminds me of that famous old ocean liner, the SS Titanic.

Even after the professional denialists in their very own doomed Titanic have hit the iceberg which sank them (just before it melts) they bellow "Full speed ahead"

Laughable, you could not make it up, they are like something out of one of those corny old 'Carry On movies .... 'Carry on sinking' - truly epic comedy.

The Titanic had a very loud foghorn also.

by Art Thu Aug 14, 2008 18:45

The point I made re the flack a sceptic gets is still valid.

The unimpeachable reference applied to quote about the archbishop of Canterbury saying that Billions would die. And it does seem that if you look at some of the Authors the IPCC uses and look at the comments about them from well qualified individuals such as Prof Reiter you do get the feeling that the consensus is populated by also rans - not those who actually wrote the articles.

There have been several high profile resignations from the IPCC for just that. And now the "word on the street" is that the scientific community is saying enough is enough and questioning the way the IPCC works.

To emphasise my point about quoting the Archbishop of Canterbury - there is nothing like a good old catastrophe to fill the churches.

And just think what a Global catastrophe could do for attendance.

Just like in the films when the comet is about to hit the Earth - the camera pans round to show full churches.

What a film it would make!! - You could call it "An Inconvenient Truth II"

by Street cleaner. Thu Aug 14, 2008 18:53

?

Honestlty, who writes your scripts?

"The word on the street" - and what street might that be I wonder?

EXXON Avenue maybe?

Perhaps TEXACO Boulevard?

Or could it be MOBIL Freeway?

How about SHELL Street?

The "street" is where the denialists get their guff from!

by Crash Thu Aug 14, 2008 18:56

I fear that, just like any good zombie film, this site is starting to attract ever more climate-change denier arguments from ever further afield. I hear the wailing of distant zombies descending in ever greater numbers onto BIMC...

According to Wikipedia, "Modern zombies are closely tied to the idea of a zombie apocalypse, the collapse of civilization caused by a vast plague of undead"

I think if you add the word "arguments" to the end of that sentence you get the picture.

Anyway, regarding Art's comment: "Always expect the unexpected Crash"

Well I'm still waiting for the unexpected. I can't say I'm exactly astounded that when I asked for confirmation that the IPCC had said that the world wasn't going to warm in the next 10 years, I was provided with a variety of quotes from well known climate deniers like Jennifer Marohasy, the kind of folks paid handsome sums to stay on message by Exxon Mobil.

The problem really is that the non-existence of climate change is such a great story, a great relief for us to hear, and one that so many ordinary people and powerful interests want to believe in, that the facts simply cannot be allowed to stand in its way.

by Mell O Thu Aug 14, 2008 21:22

Good day this.

Well done gang x.

by Joe Bloggs Thu Aug 14, 2008 22:08

Is the science, which nobody has bothered to discuss today

by Mell O Thu Aug 14, 2008 22:12

Is a fairer, cleaner. greener, sustainably peaceful future for all life on Earth.

by Art Fri Aug 15, 2008 07:51

From Joe Bloggs and mell-O

The boys seem unable to discuss the science as Joe points out prefering to just make silly abuse

As for the peacefull sustainable life on earth that is exactly what we all want.

Where we differ is only in the single area of what threats are out there.

We sceptics never said that man does not affect the climate - just look at London Smog in the past and on TV in China now for proof of that. So we are not "Denialists" as some would try to paint us.

No - what we are sceptical about is the reliance on models to proove that Climate Change is catastrophic.

And the evidence for that is getting thinner by the day it seems.

So for a truly sustainable peaceful future for all on the earth - we need to get it right. And blindly following a mantra of a singlular unpproven catastrophe scenario when money and resources could be far better spent elswhere as Lomborg points out should be worth an adult discussion.

Not that it seems some on here are interested in that as they seem to have closed minds.

"The Scientists have spoken"

by Emma Fri Aug 15, 2008 09:47

Thanks Mell O for the kind words.

The other issue in this debate I have is the ongoing drip-drip from the denial camp telling us, the scientists have had enough and are going to tell it like it is, the word on the street is that the global warming lie is going to burst, the consensus is breaking and so on.

But when I read the news, I get the opposite impression. The severity of the issue has been downplayed and issue is more urgent than ever.

I would like to share a tiny amount of what I am seeing here;

The US military (of whom I am no fan) accept climate change;
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/clima....html

Clearing smog reveals true extent of global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/clima....html

And finally, and this is the major one, the Bush administration, as had been pointed out here, is a major source of scepticism (I would say denial) over global warming and set up a new body, the "US Climate Change Science Program" to review the science and data, hoping to be able to delay and debunk having to take any action - now they have reached a conclusion - and it is the opposite of what the denial camp are saying will happen;

"US Climate Change Science Program has issued a report concluding that computer models do effectively simulate climate. It also accepts that the models show human activity was responsible for the rapid warming of the 20th century."
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/clima....html

by Art Fri Aug 15, 2008 15:36

Strange how one interprets information. because i notice that Emma neglected to highlight that whilst David Bader of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California told reporters that the models were "good" he went on to say (New Scientist actually said "conceded") that:-

"The report did not examine predictions of future climate change. Nor did it address policy issues, which will be left to the next administration".

So the what we actually have is someone saying that the models are "Good" - not accurate or specific - just "Good"

And he also says (conceded) that the ability of these models to predict future climate and climate change was not examined by the report.

So far from being "the major one" - in reality this report says nothing about the supposed catastrophe because the report did not cover these models ability to predict.

by Art Fri Aug 15, 2008 15:40

As for the US military

Comments in the article like:-

“"Every time the price of oil goes up $10 a barrel, it costs the Department of Defense $1.3 billion a year," Shaffer said.”

Would indicate to a sceptic that the military is just covering its backside!!!!

by Mell O Fri Aug 15, 2008 15:48

I think that every 'scientist' should swear an oath to 'do no harm' as doctors are required so to do.

Those engaged in Global Warming / Climate Change related work should get out of the Laboratories and into the field more, in particular Africa, Bangladesh, low lying states and Islands, and the Polar regions as a part of their research and they should never be funded by the private sector whilst engaged in such works.

They should also listen to and pay more attention to Indigenous peoples especially, as they know more about living sustainably than anybody else on the planet.

by Joe Bloggs Fri Aug 15, 2008 16:20

Personally I think scientists should stay in their labs and get their fingers out and give us a definitive answer so we can all stop arguing.

Ban their tea breaks I say

by Sy Sat Aug 16, 2008 09:59

Joe Bloggs wrote

'Personally I think scientists should stay in their labs and get their fingers out and give us a definitive answer'

This in itself betrays a fundamental lack of comprehension of climate science, and one which perhaps scientists should do a better job of communicating to the general public. So here's a quick attempt at a chaos theory and climate explanation... Or perhaps an answer as to why scientists don't say things with certainty when talking about the future.

Climate/Weather are chaotic systems. That means that cannot be predicted with certainty, although at a statistical level probabilities can be calculated. Scientists are not going to be able to give you a definitive teleology of the world's climate and weather systems because this is basically impossible. To do so you would need to know every future action of every creature/system on the planet down to the flapping of each butterfly's wings at every moment of the future. Given the impossibility of such absolute knowledge, probability is the best you are going to get. And current evidence suggests that there is a 90-95% probability that humans are affecting global climate through fossil fuel emissions and land usage change (particularly deforestation).

In particular, while weather predictions for specific areas over the short term (between two weeks and several years) are very unreliable due to the myriad factors which influence this chaotic and dynamic system (especially ENSO the southern ocean oscillation responsible for El Nino/La Nina - El Nino means a warmer year in total (eg 1998 where there was a strong El Nino) and La Nina means a colder year (eg 2007/2008)), longer term predictions can be made about the general trends that will occur over decades. An incredibly simplified way of saying this is that while we scientists can't say what the weather will do short term, they can say that increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and reduced volume of forests to absorb carbon dioxide will lead to an overall increase in temperatures, although this increase will not be felt equally by all areas at all times.

Given that you are not ever going to get a 100% certain prediction for climate, 90-95% is about as good an idea as we are likely to get. This does of course mean that there is a 5-10% chance that humans are not responsible for the observed warming that has occurred over the last 50 years. So it's not certain that we are causing the observed changes to climate, no scientist or 'believer' that I know claims certainty about a chaotic system. Doing so fundamentally misunderstands the way chaotic systems and nonlinear causality work.

What the 'believers' do however seem to believe, is that the probability suggested by the best available scientific information (90/95%) entails that it is very likely that we are causing these changes, and that as they are very likely to lead to increased hardships and suffering for hundreds of millions of peoples and other species of life, that we ought to be taking action to try and mitigate these probable consequences of our actions.

by Joe Bloggs Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:43

Actually Sy it was a joke. The bit about tea breaks and lab rats gives it away.

by Bliss Sun Aug 17, 2008 05:43

This from earlier.

There are legitimate difficulties with the IPCC's 90 per cent confidence in anthropogenic warming. It is not being a "denialist" to question what that number means and how it was derived.

The IPCC seems to imply that this number results from a scientific process -that it has tested a hypothesis. Indeed, the IPCC tells us its understanding is based "upon large amounts of new and more comprehensive data, more sophisticated analysis of data, improvements in understanding of processes and their simulation in models, and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges".

If this is what the IPCC has done, it has very weak evidence.

Ninety per cent is the weakest acceptable level of confidence in a hypothesis test. It is not clear from the Summary whether the IPCC has, in fact, undertaken such an analysis. It is more likely that it has neither a testable model nor data available for external researchers to replicate such a test. In other words, the IPCC's 90 per cent confidence has emerged from scientists evaluating whether they think their own work is correct.

There is an even greater problem with the analysis. The IPCC provides a breakdown of seven extreme weather events, and an assessment of human influence on those events. Only two of the individual events have a human impact of at least 66 per cent, the other five are 50-50 propositions.

Somehow this all adds up to 90 per cent.

by Art Sun Aug 17, 2008 06:22

Where does the IPCC terminology "Very highly confident" come from?

Where does the terminology "Very highly confident" come from?

On February 2, the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) issued a 21-page Summary for Policymakers (SPM) written by Fourth Assessment Report science section leads and government political or staff officials from 113 countries.

In the SPM, they issue pronouncements with probabilities and degrees of confidence expressed as "likely", "very likely" and "virtually certain". In a footnote, they relate these adjectives to confidence levels of 67%, 90% and 99%, which is detailed in the UncertaintyGuidanceNote.pdf IPCC policy for team members document.

Where does this terminology come from?

In statistics, similar terminology is used but with different meanings to make claims of statistically "significant" (95%), "highly significant" (99%), and "very highly significant" (99.9%).

Many of us were confused by the similar - but not the same - terminology used in the SPM and posted questions at RealClimate asking for an explanation of what the SPM terminology meant since the meaning is not provided by the IPCC documents. No answer was provided by RealClimate.

Where does this terminology come from and what does it mean?

Per a footnote in the SPM, as well as this paper by Dr. Steven Schneider, Professor of Biology at Stanford University, most of these estimates came from subjective "expert judgment". Dr. Schneider's paper appears to have been written for the IPCC and used as the basis of the terminology used by the IPCC. While some estimates may be data-derived, the SPM does not say which are based on data and which are based on subjective analysis.

The probability and confidence levels in the Summary for Policymakers are not (in general) statistically derived but are from subjective analysis made by experts in the field.

The probability and confidence levels are literally "gut feel" guesses.

To put the "religious" application on this is interesting - If priest were to say that they are 90% certain God exists then I think we would question that.

Thus questioning a rather poor 90% confidence level where the data is more "gut feel" than hard science does enable us sceptics to stand back and look on in wonder at how many are taken in by the sham.

by Skeptic / Denialist. - NERC Sun Aug 17, 2008 08:56

The NERC report is out now, available for free here: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/other/documents/rapi...d.pdf
Along with a very interesting DVD if you ask them for it.

Scientific certainties and uncertainties

* Is the planet warming?
* Can we distinguish man-made from natural effects?
* The world's average surface temperature has increased by 0·7°C. Does it matter?
* Predicting climate change with state-of-the-art models.
* Climate can change rapidly, over decades rather than centuries.
* What are carbon sinks and carbon sources?
* What is 'global dimming'?
* Are the oceans becoming more acidic and does it matter?
* El Niño and climate change
* Is the ozone hole related to the greenhouse effect?
* Rising sea levels
* Is the world's ice melting?
* What will climate change mean for our world?
* What will climate change mean for the UK?
* Can climate change be stopped?
* Will climate change accelerate?
* What is the Kyoto Protocol?
* How can we reduce emissions?
* Reducing uncertainties

Could global warming gradually turn Britain into a country with a southern European climate?

Or could we suddenly be plunged into a mini-ice age? Are both these scenarios valid? Why is everyone so hot under the collar about climate change? Surely it won't happen tomorrow?

In fact, climate can and does change rapidly.

Over as little as 10-20 years we could see major changes. But what causes rapid switches in climate?

Through the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Rapid Climate Change (RAPID) programme scientists are investigating whether western Europe could be shivering in the freezer or sweltering in the sauna.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/other/rapid.asp

by katy Sun Aug 17, 2008 09:00

Scientists believe that rising greenhouse gas emissions will lead to changes in other parts of the Earth's life support system, triggering more releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This may create an upward spiral, accelerating the warming we are already witnessing.

These positive feedback mechanisms include:

* reduced sea ice cover reflecting less of the sun's heat back out to space, changing ocean circulation patterns

* less carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans

* increased soil respiration

* more forest fires

* melting permafrost

* increased decomposition of wetlands

The carbon dioxide released while permafrost melts could equal half as much carbon as the amount in today's atmosphere.

by Sy Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:30

Try reading the IPCC documents yourself rather then unattributed cut and paste jobs from blogs...

This is from the introduction to the 2007 synthesis (full) report

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_sy...r.pdf
***note I've had to change some symbols as BIM comes up with a forbidden HTML tags message with the original***

'Treatment of uncertainty
The IPCC uncertainty guidance note1 defines a framework for the treatment of uncertainties across all WGs and in this Synthesis Report.
This framework is broad because the WGs assess material from different disciplines and cover a diversity of approaches to the treatment of
uncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses used in the natural sciences is generally different from that
used in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspects
of both.
Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. Choices among and within these three
approaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors’ expert judgment of the correctness and completeness of
current scientific understanding.
Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is,
information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is,
the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms
such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence; medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.
Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then
the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out
of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less
than 1 out of 10.
Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely greater than 95%; very likely greater than 90%; likely greater than 66%; more likely than not greater than 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely less than 33%; very unlikely less than 10%; extremely unlikely less than 5%; exceptionally unlikely less than 1%'

so its made apparent to anyone who bothered reading the IPCC report what the terminology meant; a combination of both quantative and qualitative analysis, ie a synthesis of all the data reviewed by the IPCC. This is somewhat distinct from a 'gut feeling'.

'f priest were to say that they are 90% certain God exists then I think we would question that.'

If a child were to say they were 90-95% certain that Santa exists then I would be highly dubious

If a crystal healer were to say they were 90-95% certain that rocks have metaphysical properties I would certainly question that

However if the Met Office were to say there is a 90 - 95% chance of heavy rain across Bristol today then I would bring an umbrella with out me.

You're confusing science and faith again.

by confused again Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:52

Why don't the "denialists" seem able to be able get any of their so-called "facts" right?
Every time they post anything here it gets exposed as being either "spin" or "disinformation"..... or just plain and simple "lies".
I really cannot understand why they do it, or what their motivation is in seeking to mislead anybody.
Can they put up any kind of definitive "facts" at all?

by Art Sun Aug 17, 2008 14:45

Far from getting it wrong the skeptics have been proved correct of late

The MSU data shows the low-latitude tropopause is not warming, the AquaSat data that the stratosphere is not cooling and the Argos data that the oceans are not warming to 3000m.

The 2007 super El Nino was not super and ended in the rather more impressive La Nina ongoing.

The forecast warming in 2008 has been abandoned.

AGW is being and has been falsified at nearly every turn in the road

Oh and Elvis is still with us is and serves me my fish and chips every Friday.

Lucia Liljegren’s blog is worth a look

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-d...tall/

Her conclusion is worth repeating here.

“The IPCC projections remain falsified. Comparison to data suggest they are biased. The statistical tests accounts for the actual weather noise in data on earth.

The argument that this falsification is somehow inapplicable because the earth data falls inside the full range of possibilities for models is flawed. We know why the full range of climate models is huge: It contains a large amount of “climate model noise” due to models that are individually biased relative to the system of interest: the earth.

It will continue to admit what I have always admitted: When applying hypothesis tests to a confidence limit of 5%, one does expect to be wrong 5% of the time. It is entirely possible that the current falsification fall in the category of 5% incorrect falsifications. If this is so, the “falsified” diagnosis will reverse, and not we won’t see another one anytime soon.

However, for now, the IPCC projections remain falsified, and will do so until the temperatures pick up. Given the current statistical state ( a period when large “type 2″ error is expected) it is quite likely we will soon see “fail to falsify” even if the current falsification is a true one. But if the falsification is a “true” falsification, as is most likely, we will see “falsifications” resume. In that case, the falsification will ultimately stick.

For now, all we can do is watch the temperature trends of the real earth.”

Whatever you say Sy, you cannot deny that the models that the IPCC used to scare the politicians got it wrong – so wrong in fact that normal statistical confidence levels were abandoned. And you post simply confirms that gut feeling was how the 90% was reached.

Also worth noting is Roger Pielke’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_(Jr) blog http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ where he makes some interesting observations on how scientists with an agenda sometimes just assume that because they believe their version of science is right then so too is their version of political view.

“The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that not only are his scientific views correct, but because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views.”

It is this point where the believers are most vulnerable – because if you rely on models that are proved to be incorrect buy a substantial margin, then those who said “trust me on this” will find the margin they occupy getting thinner and thinner.

All we sceptics have to do is sit back and wait whilst the believers get themselves hung by their own petard.

by Art with an F Sun Aug 17, 2008 15:50

Are you hoping to be taken seriously here Art?
If you are I suggest you write something serious for once.
Lucia Liljegren : not serious.
"Oh and Elvis is still with us is and serves me my fish and chips every Friday"
Elvis has been dead a good few years now.
I would guess you are from the David Icke or Clive Hammond school of unreality.

by Art Mon Aug 18, 2008 07:50

What makes me laugh is the lack of original thought.

Even when a joke or humorous comment is made all you can do is repeat it back!!!!

It is like having an argument with a two year old who can only say in response to being told that they are being silly - "Well you are being silly too!"

Just look at the original thought and abuse here - it has to break the respect guidelines because it is playing the player not the ball, adds nothing to the debate, and is simply designed to be childishly offensive.

I think some on here need to take a step up to the adult debate.

Please!

by STRAWMAN Mon Aug 18, 2008 08:18

Please do try to think before you post, your extraneous sarcasm and general pointless witticisms / criticisms really serve NO USEFUL PURPOSE here, its all a little 19th century dont you think Clive?

by ? Mon Aug 18, 2008 08:49

What exactly are you trying to do on this thread, 'Art'?

Nobody has even hinted at proposing a return to austerity or going 'backwards' in any way and well you know it!

Many of your 'comments' smack of Clive Hammonds 'strawman' style provocation and general disruptive - trolling tactics.

Practise what you preach please and leave out the nonsense eh?

by Bliss Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:21

The trolls constant looking for an argument is boring.

I posted this on another thread and hope the sense of it stops the ludicrous sillyness of the name calling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

by Hot stuff Mon Aug 18, 2008 13:27

*
Defra's chief adviser says we need strategy to adapt to potential catastrophic increase.

The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government's chief scientific advisers.

In policy areas such as flood protection, agriculture and coastal erosion Professor Bob Watson said the country should plan for the effects of a 4C global average rise on pre-industrial levels. The EU is committed to limiting emissions globally so that temperatures do not rise more than 2C.

"There is no doubt that we should aim to limit changes in the global mean surface temperature to 2C above pre-industrial," Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the Guardian. "But given this is an ambitious target, and we don't know in detail how to limit greenhouse gas emissions to realise a 2 degree target, we should be prepared to adapt to 4C."

Globally, a 4C temperature rise would have a catastrophic impact.

Between 7 million and 300 million more people would be affected by coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline 15 to 35% in Africa and 20 to 50% of animal and plant species would face extinction.

In the UK, the most significant impact would be rising sea levels and inland flooding. Climate modellers also predict there would be an increase in heavy rainfall events in winter and drier summers.

Watson's plea to prepare for the worst was backed up by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. He said that even with a comprehensive global deal to keep carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at below 450 parts per million there is a 50% probability that temperatures would exceed 2C and a 20% probability they would exceed 3.5C.

"So even if we get the best possible global agreement to reduce greenhouse gasses on any rational basis you should be preparing for a 20% risk so I think Bob Watson is quite right to put up the figure of 4 degrees," he said.

One big unknown is the stage at which dangerous tipping points would be reached that lead to further warming - for example the release of methane hydrate deposits in the Arctic. "My own feeling is that if we get to a 4 degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase," said King.

He said a two-and-half-year analysis by the government's Foresight programme on the implications for coastal defences had more impact in the corridors of power than any other research on the effects of climate change that he presented.

"No other single factor focussed the minds of the cabinet more than the analysis that I produced through that ... We begin to have to talk about ordered retreat from some areas of Britain because it becomes impossible to defend," he said. "There's no choice here between adaptation and mitigation, we have to do both."

Other experts were concerned that Watson's comments might be seen as defeatist and an admission that emissions reductions were impossible to achieve.

"At 4 degrees we are basically into a different climate regime," said Prof Neil Adger, an expert on adaptation to climate change at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich.

"I think that is a dangerous mindset to be in. Thinking through the implications of 4 degrees of warming shows that the impacts are so significant that the only real adaptation strategy is to avoid that at all cost because of the pain and suffering that is going to cost.

"There is no science on how we are going to adapt to 4 degrees warming. It is actually pretty alarming," he added.

Speaking to the Guardian, Watson, who is a former science adviser to President Clinton and ex-chief scientist at the World Bank, said the UK should take a lead in research on carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Alluding to the US effort in the 1960s to put a man on the moon he advocated an "Apollo-type programme" to introduce 10 to 20 CCS pilot projects - which work by burying carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels underground - among OECD countries to develop the technology.

"This would allow coal-fired power plants that are currently being built to be modular and capable of having carbon capture retrofitted, and would show the world that we take the issue of climate change seriously, thus demonstrating real leadership. Without this technology we have a real problem."

He also said as coal burning is cleaned up to remove harmful sulphur pollution climate change would actually get worse. The sulphur aerosols are actually preventing some warming from taking place currently.

"This offsetting effect, which is equivalent to about 100 parts per million of carbon dioxide, will largely disappear if China and India follow the lead of the US and Europe in limiting sulphur emissions, the cause of acid deposition," he said.

by Katy Mon Aug 18, 2008 14:10

It appears the Earth's climate has the ability to naturally regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Historic records extracted from ice cores show quantities of CO2 have varied widely in the last hundreds of thousands of years. This evidence appears to support the global warming critics view that current observations of the human-induced greenhouse effect is actually naturally occurring and the effects of carbon on the climate is over-hyped. However, a new study shows that although carbon dioxide levels may have been larger in the past, the Earth's natural processes had time to react and counteract global warming. The current trend of industrial emissions has been far more accelerated than any historic natural process, natural climate "feedback loops" cannot catch up to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

More bad news about the outlook for our climate I'm afraid. It would appear that the carbon dioxide emissions we have been generating since the Industrial Revolution have increased too rapidly for the Earth's natural defences to catch up. This new finding comes from the analysis of bubbles of air trapped in ancient ice in Antarctica, dated to 610,000 years ago.

Long before man started burning coal and oil products, the Earth would naturally generate its own carbon emissions. The main polluters were volcanic eruptions, sending millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Surely this had an effect on the state of the climate? Apparently so, but the increased levels of carbon dioxide produced by individual eruptions could be dealt with naturally over thousands of years. The climate wants to be in balance, should one quantity increase or decrease, other mechanisms are naturally triggered to bring the system back into equilibrium.

These mechanisms are known as "feedback loops". Feedback loops are common in nature, should one quantity change, production of other quantities may speed up. In the case of the carbon emission from volcanic activity, levels of the stuff appear to have been controlled by a natural "negative feedback" loop (akin to a carbon thermostat, when carbon dioxide levels were too high, another process was triggered to remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). However, the sustained atmospheric input of industrial burning of carbon dioxide by human activity has dwarfed historic volcanic carbon output, overwhelming any natural negative feedback mechanism.

This new study is published in the journal Nature Geoscience and carried out co-author Richard Zeebe. In an interview at the University of Hawaii, Zeebe comments on the climate's ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: "These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change [...] that we're going to see in the next several hundred years. Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium."

Zeebe and his team noticed that the levels of carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature correlated, rising and falling together. "When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age," he said. His study states that in the last 600,000 years the carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated only by 22 parts per million. Since the 18th century, human activity has injected 100 parts per million. Humans have increased the quantity of carbon dioxide 14,000 times more than any natural process is capable of doing. This increase has negated any chance for the climate to naturally bring carbon dioxide levels back down to pre-industrial levels in the short term. If we were to stop all emissions tomorrow, it would take the planet hundreds of thousands of years to recover naturally.

Sadly, we're not even close to slowing carbon emissions. Only last week, the US reported that carbon dioxide levels were up 2.4 parts per million during 2007 alone. The future is bleak for the planet balancing back into its prehistoric atmospheric carbon equilibrium…

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/29/global-warming-...ired/

by STRAWMAN Mon Aug 18, 2008 14:21

You can't see climate change in action, much to the disappointment of photographers and magazine art directors. Warming is a function of time, and we see it only as time passes. Years go by, we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, temperatures rise, glaciers retreat and deserts expand. One of the essential facts about climate science is that unlike, say, weather forecasting, the farther ahead we look into the future, the more confident we can be of our predictions. So we know that burning enough fossil fuel to raise the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 550 parts per million — twice preindustrial levels — will virtually guarantee a temperature increase of at least 3� F, with all the consequences that will carry. By contrast, we can't look at a hurricane, or at an iceberg melting, and say, "Yes, this is global warming, and we did this." Climate change is change, and change happens over time.

In some places of the world, that change is happening more quickly than in others, so quickly that our "fast-thinking human mind," as the University of Copenhagen geologist Minik Rosing says, can almost catch it. One of those places is the coastal town of Ilulissat, the last stop on our climate tour of Greenland. It's home to the Ilulissat ice fjord, a basin-shaped wound in the rocky coast, through which the massive Sermeq Kujalleq glacier churns toward the sea. As the glacier moves — at the hardly glacial speed of over 100 ft. a day — the ice melts and cracks into cathedrals of blue and white that bob in the harbor beyond the isfledsbanken, or iceberg bank. Sermeq Kujalleq, which is fed by the 1.8 million cubic miles of solid ice that cover central Greenland, is the most productive glacier on the island, calving icebergs with dramatic regularity. The iceberg that sank the Titanic may well have come from Sermeq, and looking upon Ilulissat's harbor, choked with sheer cliffs of ice that dwarf even the stately cruise liners, I can believe it.

We take a boat out for a tour amid the ice. In the Arctic summer Ilulissat is cool but not cold, maybe 65� F, but as we near the ice fjord, the temperature drops, as if cold is emanating from the icebergs themselves. As we leave the port, at first we encounter a slurry of ice in the water, which is sapphire blue because of the cold. But soon we near the giants, and they are easily over 100 ft. tall — and that's just above the water. (More than 80% of an iceberg's mass is beneath the surface, and the water in Ilulissat's port is more than a mile deep.) We can't get too close to the big icebergs — as they melt all the time in the salty sea, without warning, they can crack and cave in, loosing waves big enough to topple or even crush small boats. But even from a distance, they are breathtaking: natural cathedrals of white, lined by unmappable crevices, leaking pure glacial meltwater that pours into the sea as if from a fountain. It's easy to see why UNESCO made Ilulissat a World Heritage site and why tourist numbers have been growing steadily.

But we're not here as tourists. After the boat docks, our group boards a helicopter piloted by a sprite of a Greenlandic woman for a tour of the fjord and glacier, which is retreating fast. Before we leave, we are shown a map of the glacier. As pressure from the central ice cap builds up behind the glacier, it pushes its way to the sea through the ice fjord. The glacier ends where melting causes icebergs to calve off, and we see that each year the glacier has retreated farther and farther away from the sea. Sermeq Kujalleq is shrinking so fast (on a geological scale) that we can almost see it. This is global warming — as close as we can get to it — in action. There's no doubt here, no room for skeptics: temperatures have warmed in Greenland, and as they have warmed, the ice has melted. It is as simple as that.

The helicopter dances over the ice fjord toward the tongue of the glacier, the spot where it begins to shard off. The icebergs here are still floating, but save for puddles of melt, you can't see the water; the ice itself is packed as tightly as commuters on a Tokyo subway car. Seen from the helicopter, the ice is dusted black and brown with the remnants of soil and rock the glacier scraped away on its trip to the sea. The ice fjord is bordered by tall walls of rock that rise on either side of the ice floe, carved, like much else in Greenland, by the glaciers.

We land on one flat ridge for a closer look, 35 km from the tongue of the glacier. (You can't land on the unstable glacier itself.) We can just see the glacier on the horizon. It looks immobile and invulnerable, but we know it is vanishing. Kim Kielsen, the Greenlandic minister for the environment, who is traveling with the group, tells us he visited this same spot in 1992 and could see the glacier before him. "Now," he says, "gone."

It's easy to misunderstand all of this. Climate change itself isn't a bad thing; it isn't even unusual. Take a geologic step back, and you can see that our climate has always changed, alternating just within the past several hundred thousand years between ice ages, when glaciers covered much of the Northern Hemisphere, to eras warmer than our own. Change is the nature of the planet, just as every winter and summer Sermeq Kujalleq advanced and retreated, long before we were here to give the greenhouse effect an added push. Our own human period has been one of unusual climatic stability — a fact that has been essential to our own species' success.

What matters is not that change is happening but that it is happening so fast. In Ilulissat, the ice that once covered much of the sea in the winter and allowed hunting, fishing and travel by dogsled comes no longer. In less than a human lifetime — barely the blink of an eye in geologic time — a way of life millenniums old will be lost here. Elsewhere we may see temperate and fertile areas turn dry and barren in the same time period. What we've known and lived with may no longer exist — and we may not be able to adapt in time for what is coming. Change is painful, even if we can't see it happening.

by Ab Mon Aug 18, 2008 17:37

The Guardian is doing its normal trick and STILL referring to the Stern report that has been totally discredited and Stern sacked from the Treasury.

From you Guardian post:-

"According to the government's 2006 Stern review on the economics of climate change, between 7 million and 300 million more people would be affected by coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline 15 to 35% in Africa and 20 to 50% of animal and plant species would face extinction."

And yet Tol whom Stern quotes on a number of occasions was scathing in his critics.

But to read the Guardian article it would seem that the Stern review is taken as fact when most of Sterns fellow economists ridicule it.

but then it seems that Guardian readers never have had a particularly good grip on reality.

by Ab Mon Aug 18, 2008 17:46

Bliss provides a link to a BBC article by an IPCC lead author that disagrees with all of what you say.

In particular the summary

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.

However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.

The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.

He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..."

Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.

John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US

He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007

I think being sceptical of you doom-mongers is the way forward as more and more voices are challenging the so called consensus. It seems to me that some on here seem evermore desperate to ram the catastrophe scenario down our throats. And all that does is create more resistance. Think about it - someone starts shoving you to go one way - you may put up with it at first whilst you figure out what is going on, but when it is clear what is happening you shove back and take your own direction.

So the more you shove - the more the resistance/questions/sceptiscm.

by Katy Mon Aug 18, 2008 19:57

I think you are labouring under a misapprehension Ab.

I dont know who you are but a lot of us here do know one another, we use this space to share information and to network etc.

This is not a competitive type space I'm afraid.

Nobody here wants to argue with you or compete with you.

I doubt that anybody posts anything here just for your benefit.

This space is in no way about you, it never was, and never will be, I am sorry if you are dissapointed.

There are no prizes for whoever posts most or bellows loudest.

If you dont know what this space and we are about read the guidelines mate.

by Ab Tue Aug 19, 2008 06:36

But if that were true Katy - then those of us sceptical about GW would get a fair hearing.

Up until recently we have not.

Your words of wisdom would be better directed at "By ?" and "Strawman" plus all those "others" who fail to debate but only abuse.

And as for:-

"Nobody here wants to argue with you or compete with you."

The evidence to the contrary is set out above and on different threads in vast quantity.

by Paranoid or Egoistic? Tue Aug 19, 2008 07:23

You obviously either never read the guidelines or you simply do not understand them .... 'Ab'

by Art Tue Aug 19, 2008 08:09

Very well said indeed.

by Joe Bloggs Tue Aug 19, 2008 15:23

Ha how funny.

In the battle for ideological dominance this is one of the most competitive places I have ever seen. You may not realise it but your'e up there with the pushy shovey world of capitalism when it comes to getting your world view across.

I think that says something fundamental about human nature and what drives us all

by dances with trolls Tue Aug 19, 2008 15:38

Yeh right clive, like the BBC and ITV and the Telegraph and the Mail and the Sun and the News of the world and broadcast media generally.

by Joe Bloggs Tue Aug 19, 2008 16:23

I'm not Clive i'm Joe, if you want to start trolling at least get the name right

by Mell O Wed Aug 20, 2008 09:58

This comment has been moved from another thread. Imcvol

Right now as a society we are engaged the biggest gamble of all time, a bet that the global warming canaries are wrong, climate change is all natural and inevitable and that there's nothing we can or should do.

We already have more extreme weather events in the last 20 years than in recorded history. There are natural weather cycles, but the changes are now so rapid and so unpredictable that our economies and our ability to feed ourselves is at risk, both here and in developing countries.

Any money we spend on aid or development programmes will be useless if the ecosystems around them collapse.

Personally, I'd rather we act now and risk having been wrong than do nothing about climate change and watch entire habitats and nations collapse, and wonder if we could have helped.

by Art Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:01

This comment has been moved from another thread. Imcvol

I am sure you believe that Mell-O - but if you look to history then you will see that the road to conflict is littered with good intentions.

Please read what has been said above.

Economic growth is not the enemy of environmentalism. people like you who want to dictate YOUR views, YOUR agenda, YOUR solutions are the enemy of environmentalism because what you want us here in the west to do is give up some of what we have. BUT you want the developing world to give up what they have never had.

And that is easy for you to try to dictate from the comfort of sitting in front of your screen.

But economic growth and new technology will give the developing world the standards of living you take for granted and therefore do not value.

by Mell O Mon Aug 25, 2008 18:18

ACCRA, 25 August 2008 (IRIN)

Swathes of West Africa's coastline extending from the orange dunes in Mauritania to the dense tropical forests in Cameroon will be underwater by the end of the century as a direct consequence of climate change, environmental experts warn.

"The coastline [as it is now] will be completely changed by the end of this century because the sea level is rising along the coast at around two centimetres every year," said Stefan Cramer, Nigeria director of Heinrich Boll Stiftung, a German environmental NGO.

Even where urban areas appear unscathed, sea level rise will still challenge towns and cities by threatening the underground water supplies from which millions of people across the region draw their water.

"[Increasing salinity] will make the ground water undrinkable and unsuitable for agricultural purposes. The result will be food and water insecurity," agreed George Awudi, Ghana Programme Coordinator for the environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth.

The effects of sea-level rise will be most "dramatic" in Nigeria's economic capital Lagos which is just five metres above sea level, with some parts of the city lying below sea-level, Cramer said.

The flooding is likely be most severe in Lagos because of its position at the southern end of the Gulf of Guinea where stronger tropical storms from the South Atlantic create storm surges up to three metres high, Cramer said. He estimates that most of the 15 million inhabitants of Lagos will be displaced and Nigeria's southern Delta region where oil installations are located will also be swamped.

Other major urban centres in West Africa which experts have identified as at risk of flooding are Banjul in The Gambia, Bissau in Guinea Bissau, and Nouakchott in Mauritania. All three capitals are at or close to sea level.

Blame

Environmentalists blame the gradual melting of the 3,000 metre-thick Greenland ice cap in the Arctic as being responsible for the coastal erosion along the Coast of Guinea. Greenland is three times the size of Nigeria and its emptying into the Atlantic causes a rise in the sea-level.

"It is all due to climate change - the greenhouse gas emissions result in global warming and subsequent melting of the Greenland ice cap," Cramer said.

Compounding the situation in West Africa, in August 2007 a tropical storm 5,000 kilometres off the coast caused a shift in the strong currents that run near the Nigerian coast and destroyed a protective sand bar.

The solution

Environmental experts have different solutions to the problem.

"I think the best way out for the moment is devising simpler and more cost effective solutions such as how to preserve towns and villages under threat and preventing sea water intrusion", the director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Yvo de Boer said.

"The sensible option is moving to higher ground which is a tough option especially for Nigeria as it means giving up its economic centres in Lagos and its oil installations in the Delta", Cramer said.

But Awudi at Friends of the Earth described relocation as an "unthinkable option" due to its economic, social and cultural implications.

"Every solution to a problem must focus on the major cause of that problem and in this case greenhouse gas emissions by industrialised countries which are responsible for sea-level rise must be effectively tackled," Awudi said.

"The industrialised countries should take proactive steps in curtailing their emissions responsible for climate change which will have a positive impact on sea-level rise," he said.

However according to Cramer even if the industrialised countries do stop their greenhouse gas emissions, the trend of rising sea levels would continue unchanged for another 50 to 100 years.

The experts all made their comments on the sidelines of a UNFCCC working meeting in the Ghana capital Accra where representatives of 150 countries have gathered to continue preparatory negotiations for a landmark climate change conference due to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009 where a successor to the Kyoto Treaty is to be signed.

http://www.irinnews.org/Theme.aspx?Theme=ENV